Public Bill Committee

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

Steve McCabe: I have the usual preliminaries before we begin. Remember to switch your electronic devices to silent. The Speaker does not permit food or drinks, other than the water provided, to be consumed during the sitting. If Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or pass them on when they have finished speaking, that would be extremely helpful.
You may have spotted at the top of today’s amendment paper that there is a supplementary programme motion in the name of Mr Wood, the Government Whip. I understand that he does not intend to move it at this point in the proceedings, but that he may move it at the end of the sitting. Is that correct?

Mike Wood: Yes, Chair, either this morning or at the start of the afternoon—whichever is appropriate.

Steve McCabe: Okay, we will take it later. That is fine.

Clause 216 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 217 - Prohibition of unfair commercial practices

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 217, page 146, line 5, leave out second “trader” and insert “person”.
This amendment ensures that the definition of “commercial practice” for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill includes an act or omission by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of a consumer’s product to another consumer.

Steve McCabe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 218 to 222 stand part.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.
Clause 217 sets out the unfair commercial practices that are prohibited. Those include misleading actions, misleading omissions, aggressive practices, contravention of the requirements of professional diligence, the omission of material information from an invitation to purchase, and the practices listed in schedule 18.
The clause also defines important terms for the purpose of this chapter, including “commercial practice”, “consumer” and “trader”. Commercial practice is defined as any act or omission by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of any trader’s product to a consumer or of a consumer’s product to another person. As such, a business providing a platform on which products are promoted or supplied may fall within the scope of this chapter.
Government amendment 71 is a technical amendment to clause 217. It ensures that the Bill reflects acts or omissions by traders that are currently covered by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, or the CPRs for short. It ensures that traders that enable private individuals to sell products to each other are within the scope of this chapter, reflecting the scope of current law.
Clause 218 defines and prohibits commercial practices that are misleading actions and restates the equivalent provisions from the CPRs. It protects consumers from traders who deceive through the provision of false and misleading information.
Clause 219 defines and prohibits commercial practices that are misleading omissions. It requires traders to provide consumers with the information they need in an up front, clear and timely manner to make an informed transactional decision.
Clause 220 defines and prohibits commercial practices that are aggressive and restates the equivalent provisions from the CPRs.
Clause 221 defines and prohibits commercial practices that contravene the requirements of professional diligence and restates the equivalent provisions from the CPRs. It requires that traders do not engage in practices that fall below the standard of skill and care they may be reasonably expected to have provided.
Clause 222 lists what information must be provided to consumers when a commercial practice is an invitation to purchase. The information is deemed material.
I hope hon. Members will support Government amendment 71, and I propose that clauses 217 to 222 stand part of the Bill.

Steve McCabe: I call Neil Coyle.

Neil Coyle: Is it not the shadow Minister first?

Steve McCabe: I thought you were indicating. This is what happens when you are drafted in at the last moment, isn’t it? I will eventually wake up; do not worry.

Neil Coyle: Thank you, Mr McCabe. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.
In speaking to the amendments, may I thank the organisations that have contributed? There is a whole range of them, but I would particularly like to thank the British Toy and Hobby Association and Electrical Safety First, not least because they are based in the best constituency in the country: Bermondsey and Old Southwark. The other organisations include Which? and trading standards bodies. There is a range of amendments in my name covering a range of issues. They have at their core the need to protect British  consumers, British businesses and British standards. I want to air a lot of issues. I hope I will not need to force votes and I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
Amendment 118 would make a person marketing goods online a trader for the purposes of the Act. Amendment 119 would make it an unfair commercial practice to sell goods online unless the specified safety requirements have been complied with. Amendment 123 should be self—

Steve McCabe: Order. Mr Coyle, we seem to have got out of sync. You are currently speaking to your amendments, but we have not quite got to them,

Neil Coyle: Are we not there yet, Mr McCabe? It looks like it is me who needs to wake up.

Steve McCabe: It has been an early start for all of us. Why not just pause there and we can return to you later?

Neil Coyle: I am a bit rusty.

Steve McCabe: Regard it as a dress rehearsal. I call Seema Malhotra.

Seema Malhotra: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe.
Before we turn to the group led by amendment 118, I will make some brief remarks on clause 217 stand part and speak to Government amendment 71. Clause 217 sets out a general prohibition on unfair commercial practices. As the Minister has outlined, it defines commercial practice as
“any act or omission by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of—
the trader’s
product to a consumer
another
trader’s product to a consumer,
or,
a consumer’s product
to the trader or another
trader”.
Subsection (4) introduces provisions outlining what constitutes an unfair commercial practice, which may include a misleading action, a misleading omission or an aggressive practice, and those are dealt with in the following clauses. In addition, the subsection states that a commercial practice is unfair if it is listed in schedule 18, which we will debate in detail shortly.
We welcome the clause as a necessary provision in prohibiting unfair commercial practice, and I reiterate that we look forward to working with the Minister, including in today’s debate. If there are ways in which we can improve the Bill, we are very happy to work collaboratively so that it is as robust as possible. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark in the light of our discussions with stakeholders will play an important part in those deliberations.
Amendment 71 ensures that the definition of commercial practice for the purposes of chapter 1 of part 4 of the Bill includes an act or omission by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of a consumer’s product to another consumer. We welcome this amendment, which importantly ensures that the actions of rogue traders still fall under the definition of commercial practice and supports the integrity of the regime.
Clause 218 introduces provisions defining commercial practices that are misleading actions. We welcome the clause, which provides a necessary definition of a misleading action, and support its inclusion in the Bill.
Clause 219 introduces a definition of commercial practices that count as misleading omissions. Under the clause, a misleading omission would constitute the omission of material information and information that the trader is required by another enactment to provide. As with clause 218, it is a common-sense, straightforward clause and we support it.
Clause 220 sets out how an aggressive practice could constitute harassment, coercion or undue influence. That can involve behaviour before a contract or purchase is made, but it can also occur after a transaction has taken place. We support the definition’s inclusion in the Bill, but I ask for clarification. I draw the Minister’s attention to subsection (3)(a), where the Bill states that
“‘coercion’ includes the use or threat of physical force”.
Does the Minister intend that coercion includes many other threats, be they financial or personal blackmail, to suggest just a couple? Is there a wider definition or guidance on interpretation that would be helpful in providing clarification for the consumer as well as for those making a decision under the clause? I would welcome clarity from the Minister on that.
Clause 221 defines commercial practices that contravene the requirements of professional diligence. That includes practices that fall short of the standard of skill and care that a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers and that is commensurate in the trader’s field with honest market practice or the general principle of good faith. That is important for rooting out rogue traders who may not be qualified for their profession, whether they are builders, electricians or other experts. We welcome the definition.
Clause 222 sets out where a commercial practice would be considered to have omitted material information. Subsection (2) lists what would constitute an omission, including the main characteristics of a product, the business address and the delivery price, among other things. Although we support the list of omissions and welcome its inclusion in the Bill, elements of the clause could go further to provide more protection to consumers, as reflected in amendment 127, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, and amendment 126, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, which we will come to.

Kevin Hollinrake: I think there is just one key point that the hon. Lady asked me to address, which is about other types of coercion. Looking at the definition with regard to practices, clause 220 talks about “coercion or undue influence”. Under subsection (3),
“‘undue influence’ means exploiting a position of power in relation to consumers so as to apply pressure in any way”.
I think that covers the definition, as she requested.

Amendment 71 agreed to.

Neil Coyle: I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 217, page 146, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) a person
marketing P’s goods for sale
online.”
This amendment makes a person marketing goods online a trader, for the purposes of this Act.

Steve McCabe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 119, in clause 217, page 146, line 22, after “222),” insert—
“(ba) a product is
sold online, and the operator of the online marketplace has not taken
reasonable steps, as defined by regulations made under section 234 of
this Act, to ensure that the goods offered for sale in the online
marketplace comply
with—
(i) the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 1803) (‘the 2005 Regulations’), and
(ii) such other safety requirements as the Secretary of State may specify.”
This amendment makes it an unfair commercial practice to sell goods online unless the specified safety requirements have been complied with.
Amendment 123, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Marketing online
products that are
either—
(a) counterfeit;
or
(b)
dangerous.”
Amendment 120, in clause 218, page 147, line 9, at end insert—
“(e) an operator of
an online marketplace failing to take reasonable steps, as defined by
regulations made under section 234 of this Act, to ensure that no goods
offered for sale in the marketplace have been the subject of a
notification to an enforcement authority under regulation 9 of the 2005
Regulations.”
This amendment makes it a misleading action to sell goods online without taking reasonable steps to ensure that those goods have not been subject to a recall.
Amendment 124, in clause 223, page 150, line 27, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a
commercial practice has been found to be unfair under paragraph 32 of
Schedule 18 of this Act, the authorities under this section have the
power to require the removal of the relevant online marketing from the
internet.”
Amendment 121, in clause 234, page 158, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary
of State must by regulations define ‘reasonable steps’
for the purposes of sections 217 and 218 of this
Act.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to define “reasonable steps” for the purposes of clauses 217 and 218 of this Act.
Amendment 122, in clause 241, page 160, line 14, at end insert—
“‘online
marketplace’ means a service using software, including a
website, part of a website or an application, operated by or on behalf
of a trader, which allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with
other traders or
consumers;
‘safety
requirement’
includes—
(a) any relevant enactment governing the safety of products or of a specific type of products,
(b) any voluntary national standard of the United Kingdom, and
(c) any standard adopted by an international standardising body.”
This amendment defines the terms “Online Marketplace”, and “Safety Requirements”.

Neil Coyle: It will surprise no one that I wish to speak to these amendments; I am sorry for being rusty. Having been on Bill Committees previously and managed to get  amendments through, or at least poached by the Government, I feel embarrassed to have slipped up on this one.
I went through the amendments previously, so I hope Members can copy and paste from previous debates. Amendment 123 is self-explanatory. Amendment 120 would make it a misleading action to sell goods online without taking reasonable steps to ensure that the goods have not been subject to a recall. Amendment 124 would create the takedown power—the power to remove dangerous or counterfeit goods from online sales. Amendment 121 defines reasonable steps. Amendment 122 defines an online marketplace and safety requirements, in line with the bodies who have contributed who are still concerned about where things are at in the Bill.
I think the Government’s original aim was to publish a draft Bill; this Bill took some organisations by surprise, and I think a lot are playing catch-up, hoping that issues will be aired here and that Ministers will be meeting with them soon, ahead of the Lords stages. They hope to see a bit more progress on some measures in the Bill. Most accept the need for this legislation, but very few seem convinced that the Bill does the complete job.
Mr McCabe, you were not in the Chair for our evidence sessions, where we had all the “wild west” references. The Minister suggested a Clint Eastwood in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” character to help take action. For those not familiar with the genre, that is the third film of Sergio Leone’s trilogy, and Clint played an antihero. He takes Tuco in to claim the reward, and then shoots him down from the noose, in order to claim further, higher rewards down the line—so that is an intriguing analogy from the Minister.
The first film in the trilogy was “A Fistful of Dollars”. I am here with “For a Few Dollars More”—the second in the trilogy—to offer a better system, with some improvements to what the Government have put forward, to try to do a better job. For those who are familiar with “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, there are only two kinds of people in this world—those who have seen the film, and those who have not.
The main amendment that I wish to speak to is amendment 124, and the takedown power to require the removal from online trade of counterfeit or dangerous products. This would deliver, in part, what the Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, said on Second Reading of the Online Sale of Goods (Safety) Bill, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), when pressed about taking items offline. He said that,
“we should go further than that and require marketplaces to ensure that such products are not on their sites at all, ever, and that they check to ensure that they do not appear and, indeed, remove retailers who have transgressed.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 715.]
This group of amendments, and particularly amendment 124, help deliver what the Minister said he would like to achieve, and what I hope the Bill will achieve by the point it completes its progress through both Houses.
Fundamentally, it comes back to what customers believe. My constituents, and customers, believe whether they are shopping at Argos on the Old Kent Road or on  Amazon online that the goods they are buying will meet the required UK standards. That is simply not what is happening.
Some 90% of toy sales online are through Amazon, eBay and AliExpress. I have referred to Amazon previously, and I do not want to pick on Amazon, but it is one of the big three. It has done some work to try to address the concerns of organisations and trade bodies, but it is simply not enough. In its US annual report a couple of years ago, Amazon acknowledged that it was, in its own words,
“unable to prevent sellers in our stores or through other stores from selling unlawful, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods”.
I use Amazon to represent online marketplaces more generally, because of the familiarity of customers. They believe it is a reputable organisation and trust that it meets standards, but that is not the case.
Of course, Amazon also has an ongoing battle with the GMB on recognition, which it should have resolved some time ago. Ministers should have been supportive on that issue: they say they want a high-skills, high-wage economy, and that is what trade unions set about to deliver, and that is certainly what the GMB is seeking, in partnership with the Amazon workforce.
Frankly, it is a bit shocking that some of these amendments are necessary, but they are. The British Toy and Hobby Association survey “Don’t Toy with Children’s Safety” highlights some significant concerns. The toy industry is worth £3.2 billion to the UK economy—it is a massive sector. The survey showed that, in 2021, 60% of the toys tested were unsafe for a child to play with, and 86% of the toys freely available online were illegal to sell in the UK. That is appalling for lots of reasons, including because some of it is counterfeit.
We touched on this point in previous debates. British companies trade legitimately in goods that they are licensed to provide and make. They hold a trademark. It is insulting for them to have others trading on profitable sites such as Amazon and others with contempt for UK law, in a way that would be tackled if it was happening in a physical shop or even down a market. The truth is that Del Boy’s products would meet higher standards than some of those sold online. Platforms have been accommodating counterfeit, hooky, shoddy and dangerous goods for far too long.
The comparison with shops is important because the Government have said time and again that they want to protect the high street. Here is one means of doing so in a way that is faster and stronger than the current proposals would deliver. Physical shops pay their staff and meet standards, but are undermined in this wild west.
The British Toy & Hobby Association and Make UK tell us their version of events—they invest millions in research and development in this country to improve toys and goods and developing technology, and then they get ripped off by hooky goods that are flogged online. That undermines all their good work.
BTHA said that some of these goods are illegal because they are counterfeit, some because they do not meet labelling standards, some because they have not been tested for fire safety and even the most basic  security issues and some because they do not meet other standards and are unsafe for sale in the UK. Again, it would not be possible to sell them in a shop, but they are sold freely online. At the extreme end, some of the items were identified as being illegal because they have what are termed “chemical restriction failures”, which I hope is reasonably clear. Some are illegal because of their packaging, because they contain small parts that could cause choking or because they come with a high risk of suffocation. I hope hon. Members get the point.
As the report states, marketplaces have been told about these products, but they have not tackled them sufficiently. Organisations such as BTHA are concerned that the Bill does not go far enough to tackle some of these issues, and does not tackle them quickly enough.
In the report’s appendix, there is a story about a crocodile toy—I’ll make it snappy. In July 2018, a sample of this crocodile toy was purchased and assessed by BTHA. The product included a zip opening, which gave access to stuffing that failed toy safety standard EN71-1. There was no labelling with CE marks or address details, which is problematic. At the end of the test, BTHA reported the product to Amazon in September 2018. It took two months for Amazon even to bother replying. It confirmed that the product’s Amazon standard identification number, or ASIN, had been taken down and that it would not be sold. However, in November 2018, Amazon was still advertising the product.
In December, the crocodile toy was sent for full independent testing, but was still being sold freely online. In January 2019, the BTHA bought more of these products. They were exactly the same and were simply on sale with different ASINs and from different sellers. They failed all further tests. That was reported to Amazon, which took no further action. In fact, the crocodile took a prime place by becoming the platform’s “choice” of purchase, and was marketed as different kinds of toys, including a pillow for children, which had the same problems and was illegal, despite the attempt of National Trading Standards to intervene to take it down.
The next steps saw a new label appear that read:
“Not suitable for children under 36 months”,
which is illegal in itself. It also had incorrect marking and a care label that said:
“Not suitable for children under 6 years old it contains widgets. So please keep your children not putting it in the mouth”.
That was the limit of the safety precautions taken at Amazon’s request by the supplier. In November 2019, there was still concern about this product, which is just one example of many. It was revealed that 277 pages of identical products were on sale across the site, representing about 1,600 products that were likely to be illegal and unsafe. All were reported to the platform, but no action was taken. Even at this point, the fire and furnishings testing was done and the Office for Product Safety and Standards tried to have the product recalled, but it was still on sale. By this point, it was back on sale from the original vendor, which Amazon said had been removed from the site. This simply should not happen. It is unsafe and dangerous for children.. There were multiple opportunities for the platform to remove the seller and products. There were multiple agencies involved to try to get it taken down, including fire safety agencies and Trading Standards, but the platform refused to act and became part of the problem. The fear is that platforms  will play cat and mouse with the current proposal  unless there is a clearer power to have dangerous or counterfeit goods removed. The rapid removal power in amendment 124 provides the means to do that.
Another example is from a Which? report in 2022, which was the outcome of an Electrical Safety First investigation. The cost of living crisis and rising energy costs meant that many people were looking at how to save money on energy bills, and energy saving devices were being plugged online. The devices plug into the mains and claim to work by “smoothing” household voltages, which then “optimises” the performance of appliances such as fridges, saving on energy costs.
Sadly, research from the Which? specialist lab found no evidence that any of the products work. There was no evidence that they were saving energy or that there was any benefit to the customer, which was the primary purpose they were sold for. On top of that failure, Which? found that the boxes were dangerous, as they did not comply with electrical safety standards. Some also had faulty components; one had clay inside the plug.
The OPSS issued four separate recall notices, including one to eBay, due to a
“serious risk of fire and electric shock”.
Despite the involvement of the OPSS, 90 products are still for sale on Amazon and 20 on eBay. Which? believes that
“the measures marketplaces have in place to control the sale of unsafe products are clearly insufficient, and that far more needs to be done to prevent ineffective and potentially dangerous products from being listed.”
Both Amazon and eBay say that they have removed energy-saving boxes from their sites, but near-identical or identical products are reappearing online shortly afterwards.
It should not take Which? reports and further studies to get to these amendments. Lives are at stake if this is done wrong. ESF has reported fires in Darlington and east London caused by faulty battery packs bought on online marketplaces. It has also investigated e-bikes, for which there is huge demand to cut transport costs and save energy. There was a fire in Shepherd’s Bush in June 2022 caused by charging an e-bike. Amendment 124 is a direct means of delivering for customers by getting such products taken offline.

Platforms have had a long time to adjust and improve, but they have been too slow. The Government approach has been to ignore the issue, pretend that other legislation will address it, or pretend that a product safety review is required. [Interruption.] The Minister says “nonsense”. These products are online today, despite his previous promises to take action. In the Bill, there is the pretence that courts are in some way a solution when the backlog is criminal—pun intended—and the costs are prohibitive. Frankly, if someone has bought an item for a tenner on Amazon, they are not going to spend 10 months and £10,000 going to court to try to resolve the problem.
I thank the Minister for his letter, which he promised to write last Thursday. He said that using the courts would be an infrequent outcome of this legislation. However, I wonder where people are likely to go to try to get redress for these issues without the takedown power that I am advocating. It is not just me saying that the Government have not done enough. In November, the OPSS chief exec said that there is
“too much evidence of non-compliant products being sold by third party sellers”
on online marketplaces. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have said the same. It is time to close the loopholes and act. We must give regulators sufficient powers, including a takedown power.
Returning to the wild west analogy, I hope that the Government are listening and are seeking a new sheriff/marshal with the right armoury. Just to give a gentle nudge, the Government did not do sufficient analysis over the Rwanda plans, and we have seen the mess that that has caused. The costs to the public are running into hundreds of millions of pounds for absolutely no outcome.
In the economic impact assessment for this Bill, we do not see how the Government intend to deliver on promises made by the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who promised to write last Tuesday about the resources that will be allocated to Citizens Advice, but he did not. The Government are saying that in order to get redress from this legislation, Citizens Advice will be able to provide consumer advocacy. There is no resource attached to supporting Citizens Advice to do that, although Citizens Advice has said that it is under the biggest pressure it has experienced in its 80-year history. It simply does not have the capacity to take on an additional task that the Government say it can and will do without resourcing any impact assessment.

Paul Scully: I can confirm that the letter went out yesterday morning.

Neil Coyle: Maybe it is still in the internal post. I thank the Minister for the letter; it would be nice to know what it says. The point is that the Bill does not make clear how customers will secure redress. It presents a convoluted route of multiple agencies and potential court action that people simply will not want to take.
My amendment does not go as far as some have suggested. It is a moderate suggestion. There have been suggestions that there is full and shared liability for platforms for any product sold and that some of the measures should be retrospectively implemented so that there should be penalties on those who have sold goods that they know to be counterfeit or dangerous going back for years. I hope that amendment 121 in particular, but also other amendments in this group, are useful to the Government in delivering their aims and defending customers and businesses.
The wording of amendment 124 is crucial; I hope that the Minister will come back to this when he responds to the debate. It would “require the removal”. It is not a request to remove a product; it is a requirement to remove a product. It could be put in the hands of all the bodies in clause 143, with penalties and timely action to prevent a fatality if this is not done quickly enough. The use of the word “require” is deliberate, because the power to request is in other legislation. For example, the police can request the removal of video footage from YouTube that is incitement to violence or hatred, is homophobic or is incitement to violence between gangs. One meeting I had with the Met revealed that more than 300 requests to take down videos had been ignored by YouTube. They included calling for revenge and the  murder of specific individuals in revenge attacks between gangs in London. The police should have a stronger power than that, but as with this legislation, the power to request that something is removed is insufficient; it must be the power to compel the removal, similar to—for those familiar with local authority powers—a cease and desist order by a planning body. That would be a comparable power if the Government are keen to have something stronger than that offered in the current legislation.
I hope that amendment 124 helps British businesses, jobs, standards and customers and helps the Government —that is why I am here today. Ministers claim that they want to make the UK the “safest” place in the world to be online, and here are the means to deliver that laudable aim.

Seema Malhotra: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tour de force in going through his amendments and the reasons for tabling them. We can all agree that as a package, the amendments move us further forward in ensuring that there is adequate regulation of products sold in online marketplaces. My hon. Friend also made reference to the work of Electrical Safety First and its research. Having met the organisation, spoken at its event in Parliament and seen the important work it does through the all-party parliamentary group on online and home electrical safety, I think I can say that we all recognise that we must ensure the steps taken in the Bill will be adequate to deal with the challenges we know consumers face and which can put families, lives and businesses at risk.
My hon. Friend spoke to his amendments. Amendment 118 makes someone marketing goods online a trader. Amendment 119 makes it an unfair commercial practice to sell goods online unless the specified safety requirements have been complied with. Amendment 124 provides for a takedown power, about which the Minister has made some positive comments. We believe very strongly that that is needed, and I hope that he will give a commitment today about how we can take it forward, and whether the Government will accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, which we support, or introduce their own during the course of the Bill.
We welcome the amendments and the clarity that they call for. I will not speak too much, but I will make one comment to illustrate the point that my hon. Friend made. In a series of investigations, Electrical Safety First found 60 unsafe e-bike and e-scooter chargers for sale across four online marketplaces, including eBay, Amazon, AliExpress and Wish.com. That is particularly concerning, given the increase in fires caused by unsafe e-bike and e-scooter batteries and chargers. Younger people might have access to some of those newer products, and they may not be so aware of what warning signs to look for. That is a risk of danger that we cannot take lightly.
Now is probably a good time to raise the Government’s long-promised, shortly-to-come product safety review, which was first promised for publication over a year ago, in spring 2022, by Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist during the Report stage of the Building Safety Bill in the other place. It is interesting that both she and  the Minister have been in position over that time, as have others. The promise has outlived a number of Ministers. In all seriousness, if we understood what “shortly” meant, that would be very helpful for the Committee. Perhaps there is an issue in the Department that the Minister wants to share; we would certainly do all that we could to help. A year has passed and the product safety review has still not been published. He will know as well as I do that it is one of the things that groups such as Electrical Safety First have called for repeatedly. How can they do their work as effectively as we need them to if the Government are not doing the work that we need them to do?
I hope that we will hear something more concrete about when the product safety review will be published. The Minister will know that, as long as Ministers delay action on product safety in online marketplaces, and delay assistance to all stakeholders involved in keeping our consumers safe, their work is made harder. They need the strategy, and the direction that it will bring. The amendments, while not expediting the necessary Government action, would nevertheless provide extra safeguards in the meantime against unsafe products being sold on online marketplaces. It is important that the Government respond to the amendments, either today or during the course of the Bill, and particularly to the takedown power, which is very much needed.

Kevin Hollinrake: I appreciate the continued spaghetti western analogies. In my case, “Pale Rider” might be a more apt example, as obviously my demographics mean that I am pale, stale and male, but we are keen to ensure that we have a proper shoot-out with the people the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark describes. I am totally onside with the vast majority of what he says. He knows we need to make sure we take the right kind of action in this area, and his amendments would add provisions related to product safety to regulate the sale of dangerous and counterfeit goods in online marketplaces. Existing UK product law is clear: all products must be safe, including those sold online. However, we recognise the challenge the growth of online marketplaces has created for how we deliver product safety in a global economy. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman: these are not just UK-based problems: this is a global problem. As he knows, marketplaces operate around the globe and other jurisdictions are also seeking to tackle the issue.
I hosted a roundtable with major online marketplaces in April and was clear that, in addition to their current duties, they must do much more to keep unsafe products off their sites, including removing third-party sellers who supply unsafe goods. That point was mentioned on Second Reading of the Online Sale of Goods (Safety) Bill, as the hon. Gentleman referenced just now. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, which I visited in Teddington, is following up with a programme of test purchases. There I saw at first hand some of the potential products sold online, such as toy magnets that do not comply with UK product standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) has done fantastic campaigning in that area on button batteries. There is much we need to do. This is not just a consumer safety problem: it is about creating a fair and level playing field for UK retailers. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Argos and Amazon, but I would add our  local high-street electrical stores, which have also been disadvantaged by online marketplaces being able to operate in the way they do.

Neil Coyle: I do not remember any western in which a sheriff held a roundtable. In terms of the outcome, what is the pace at which counterfeit or dangerous goods will be removed? That is the concern for consumers. Even if I buy something, discover that it is shoddy and report it through the process in the Bill, there is still a significant gap in time before something is taken off. The takedown power is crucial to prevent further hundreds, thousands or millions of that product being sold or marketed to people when it is known to be dangerous or faulty and could put lives at risk.

Kevin Hollinrake: I entirely agree. We do not think the marketplaces are going far enough. It is a key phrase that the likes of Amazon, Wish and so on just see themselves as marketplaces rather than distributors. Our point is that they are distributors. The key thing is making sure that is properly defined in law. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out some of the percentages. That is the work done by the OPSS, defining that between 60% and 80% of the products it sampled were unsafe. That is clearly and completely wrong.

Neil Coyle: There is no answer in that as to the timespan.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am coming to that.

Neil Coyle: The Minister is coming to it, but the takedown power is the crucial bit to do that and it is what the OPSS, which he refers to, says it wants.

Kevin Hollinrake: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman allows me to go through my speech, I might be able to give some answers to his points. We are on exactly the same page on this and we have to get this right. He talks about getting the analysis right and raised a different analogy of where he considers we may have got that wrong in the past. It is important we get this right. From our perspective, the product safety route is the right way to do this. The whole product safety framework will be reformed, including online sales, and that holistic review of product safety, taking existing obligations into account—we believe there are distributor obligations—is the most appropriate vehicle for meeting concerns about unsafe goods sold online.

Neil Coyle: The shadow Minister also asked when the product safety review will take place.

Kevin Hollinrake: Very shortly. I just answered the shadow Minister; there is no prolonging this issue from my perspective. We are keen to get on with this but want to make sure the review is in the right place and the right shape when it happens. We want it to happen very soon.
The forthcoming consultation will include proposals to ensure that shopping online is as safe as on the high street and that there is a fairer playing field for law-abiding  businesses. We anticipate publishing these proposals soon and look forward to continuing engagement with our stakeholders to inform and shape our proposals.

Amendment 124 would give powers to the Competition and Markets Authority and trading standards to require the removal of marketing material for counterfeit and dangerous products online. We believe, however, that extensive enforcement powers are already available. For example, when a trader markets misleading or faulty goods online, enforcers including the CMA and trading standards can apply to the court for an enforcement order to stop and prohibit the marketing and sale of the offending goods under part 3 of the Bill. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will let me get to the point where I think he wants me to get to, that will be the point made in the letter.
Part 3 of the Bill gives the CMA the power to impose an online interface order against the infringer or a third party. That type of order or notice may require the removal or alteration of online content on a website that gives access to or promotes the offending goods. The hon. Gentleman’s point was about similar powers for other enforcement bodies such as trading standards. As I said to him, however, in a letter that I think he received yesterday, that is something I am keen to explore, and will do so over the summer. I will give him a final chance to intervene, if he wants, and then I will conclude.

Neil Coyle: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his reassurance that this will be looked at over the summer. As things stand, the Government are saying—the Minister has just said—that a product could cause a fire and potentially a fatality, but still the process would be to report it through a particular agency and possibly take court action, rather than what the regulators want to do and customers want to see, which is the take-down of the item to prevent any further dangerous incident or potential fatalities. I hope that the Minister gets to a point where that immediate power will be available.

Kevin Hollinrake: I totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is why I will look at it over the summer. It is not provided for in the Bill, but he makes a good point and I am keen to explore the options. We will come back to the House at some point to report what we will do in this space. I therefore very much hope that he will withdraw his amendments.

Neil Coyle: With that reassurance of looking at this further over the summer and to improve on where things stand, I will take the Minister at his word. The idea that we can support everything in a product safety review that will start we know not when feels a bit like missing the bus—or missing the stagecoach, to stick with the analogy. The powers need to be in the Bill to ensure that when the product safety review is done, the vehicle is already available to enable dangerous or counterfeit goods to be removed, but given his reassurance, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 217, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 - Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair

Richard Thomson: I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Making claims
about—
(a) the
environmental benefits, or
(b)
the sustainability (as defined by section 234(1C)) of a product or
service which are not based on evidence which can be verified by a
court.”
This amendment seeks to ban the practice of “greenwashing”. It would include the making of unsubstantiated claims about the sustainability of products and services an unfair commercial practice.

Steve McCabe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 69, in clause 234, page 157, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary
of State must consult on a definition of sustainability for the
purposes of paragraph 32 of Schedule
18.
(1B) A consultation under
subsection (1A)
must—
(a) set out which products and services can be labelled sustainable; and
(b) require the definition to comply with international standards.
(1C) Following a
consultation under subsection (1A) the Secretary of State must by
regulations amend this Chapter to add a definition of
sustainable.”
This amendment seeks to ban the practice of “greenwashing”. It requires the Government to define which products and services can be labelled “sustainable” and requires that this definition complies with international standards.

Richard Thomson: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. With your indulgence, if it is appropriate, I will also speak to amendment 69 and am happy to speak to amendments 115 and 116.

Steve McCabe: We will stick to amendments 68 and 69.

Richard Thomson: Thank you for your guidance, Mr McCabe.
I have not yet spoken in Committee, and the reason for that is simple. As I said on Second Reading, from a Scottish National party perspective, we think that the Bill is generally speaking a good Bill. Our concern is primarily with the bits that we feel are missing, so the amendments that I will speak to this morning and afternoon are with a view to fill in some of the potholes that we see in the road for the Bill.
Amendments 68 and 69 would tackle the phenomenon of greenwashing. By that, I mean the practice by which companies use advertising and/or public messaging to appear more eco-friendly, whether in the generality or with regard to specific products, than is actually the case. The amendments would compel the Secretary of State to consult on a definition of sustainability for these purposes that is in line with international standards and then to amend the relevant chapter to add that definition to the Bill, and to add greenwashing to the schedule 18 list of practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair.
Extravagant claims about the environmental credentials of companies and products, in a bid to make them seem more eco-friendly than is the case, are certainly nothing new, but there is growing concern among consumers about the environmental impact of their economic and lifestyle choices. In a survey for the ClientEarth organisation—it dates from only a few years ago; I think the figures are still relevant—66% of consumers have indicated that they are happy to pay more for products that they consider to be environmentally friendly, and that rises to 72% for consumers under the age of 20, so there is not only a massive concern but, potentially, a massive spend on the part of people who wish to buy products that are in line with their ethical objectives when it comes to consumption. But that means that there is also a massive spend that is potentially being misdirected and which is, in effect, penalising companies that are more genuine and honest in their claims than some other companies.
An absence of rules or a slackness in the rules on what is permitted allows all kinds of exaggerated and potentially misleading claims to fill that space. A European Commission study from 2020 highlighted the fact that more than 50% of examined environmental claims were found to be vague, misleading or unfounded. The way we get around that is, as the Commission proposes, to come up with some reliable, comparable and verifiable information that will allow consumers to make informed choices. The European Union proposals to target the problem have in their sights explicit claims that are made in the promotion of products. Claims will need to be independently verified on environmental grounds, to be proven with scientific evidence, to cover environmental impacts that are actually relevant to the product, and to identify any possible trade-offs in its manufacture, production or use, to give a full and accurate picture that will allow consumers to make an informed choice. The EU will target the 230 or more “environmental labels” in existence in the marketplace at present.
I will give an example, and it is one of the more egregious ones; I certainly was not aware of this until recently. A symbol found on some products looks a bit like the yin and yang symbol, with arrows pointing into each other. At first glance by the unwary—I include myself in that—it looks like it means that the product is recyclable. I found it on the side of a bottle of gin. It looked like it was a kind of earthenware thing. The world can stand only so many table lamps made out of such things, so I was thinking, “I want to dispose of this product responsibly. What can I do with it?” I had a look at it and I thought, “Well, that’s a recycling symbol. Into the recycling it goes.” But I went and had a look afterwards and it turns out that the symbol is no such thing: it makes no claim about whether the product is recyclable; it simply means that the company is contributing to the costs of a Europe-wide recycling scheme and not that the product itself is recyclable.
That product—I am sure I am not the only person who has done that—has ended up in a recycling stream, potentially fouling that section of the recycling stream and all the other recyclates there. It is exactly that sort of thing that we are talking about. I should say that the bottle of gin was not purchased for me; I do not particularly care for the stuff. Nevertheless, it is those sorts of claims that influence consumer purchases and  influence what materials go into manufacturing. Those economic signals go throughout the market, and there is a misalignment with the expectations that people have when it comes to disposing of the product. It has influenced the choice, led to adverse outcomes and, potentially, penalised those companies that deal in a more honest fashion with how their products are disposed of at the end of their life.
The point has been well made about the importance of making sure that environmental claims are verifiable so that consumers can make informed choices. The way to do that is, as with other unfair practices, to include it as the 32nd example of unfair practices that are considered unfair in all circumstances. It would also allow Ministers to go away and consult on a definition of what is sustainable and then come back and add that to the Bill in a way that would allow us to at least emulate if not exceed the best practice emerging elsewhere.
The amendments are important. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendments, I look forward to hearing how they intend to tackle unfair practice.

Seema Malhotra: I will speak just briefly to schedule 18 and then to amendments 68 and 69. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon for his amendments and his explanation of them.
Schedule 18 introduces—

Steve McCabe: Order. The general debate comes at the end. We need to stick with the amendment.

Seema Malhotra: That is fine. I have one line, but it can come later.
Amendment 68 would ban the practice of greenwashing. Making unsubstantiated claims about the sustainability of products and services would be an unfair commercial practice. Amendment 69 is consequential on amendment 68 and would require the Government to define which products and services can be labelled “sustainable”, and requires that the definition complies with international standards.
I support the principle of the amendments tabled and the arguments made. They are along the lines of the discussion that we had in Committee last week when I spoke to the issues around greenwashing, our standards and support for evidence. I asked the Minister what overall strategy he has to ensure that green claims are accurate and evidenced, and I asked that we have a strategy for the prevention of false claims as well as a mechanism for enforcement against them. As has been argued, that issue is on the increase, particularly for younger people.
Research has shown that those under 35 across the world make decisions about products, services and even their employment on how much they trust the information that they see in relation to sustainability and climate responsibility. If we do not tackle that issue, we will see a further increase in people misleadingly marketing products because they know that those issues drive consumer purchases. They have great influence on consumer purchases and decisions.
The Minister might refer to the green claims code introduced by the CMA. Important work has been done, but in the absence of any real leadership or  strategy from the Government I want to ask the Minister whether they intend to put the green claims code, or its successor, on a statutory footing. Making sure that we have a robust legislative underpinning and strategy for such issues is increasingly important, because many stakeholders see a gap.
Greenwashing was also mentioned by consumer groups in the Committee’s evidence sessions. I would press the Minister on whether the Government have plans to introduce amendments on the issue, and to strengthen voluntary or other codes relating to green claims and expectations. In an increasingly green economy, consumers are at risk of falling victim to misleading green advertising, and legislation needs to catch up.

Kevin Hollinrake: Amendments 68 and 69 would add the practice of greenwashing to the list of banned practices in schedule 18, and would introduce a requirement for the Government to consult on the matter. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon for his amendments, and I absolutely agree that consumers should not be misled. I admire his commitment to recycling, which is admirable. I wondered whether I should touch on that, given the difficulties that the SNP has got into with its deposit return scheme, but—

Richard Thomson: I thank the Minister for that sideswipe, but it would be a great deal easier for the Scottish Government to comply with an English-designed scheme if that scheme was actually in existence for us to emulate. Absent our deposit return scheme, we are stuck with the recycling schemes that we have, and I wonder whether the Minister will get to the point.

Kevin Hollinrake: I was just referring to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will briefly say that our perspective is that a nationwide scheme would be best for business.
Misleading consumers about the environmental qualities or impact of goods and services in a way that causes, or would likely cause, consumers to take a different decision is already against the law. Furthermore, under clause 187, when the CMA gives a provisional notice to a person in respect of an infringement of the unfair trading provisions, the CMA can require the respondent to provide evidence to substantiate the claims that they make to consumers. That meets the shadow Minister’s requirement. It is against the law to mislead, and as she says, the CMA’s draft guidance on sustainability agreements between businesses, which aim to ensure that environmental goals are achieved, will give greater clarity on these issues. Those interventions are already significant. The Government’s priority is to ensure that interventions support our environmental goals; we would then observe their impact before taking further steps. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw amendment 68 on that basis.

Richard Thomson: I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but this is an issue of fundamental importance, and if I withdrew the amendment, it would be an opportunity missed. Of course, we could go through any number of proposed amendments to the Bill and say that there is already legislation in place that in some way tackles that issue. Of course it is true that there are measures on this issue, but there is still a proliferation of claims out there that have not been tackled by existing legislation. I  know the Minister is a keen advocate for ensuring that markets work as effectively as they can, and for allowing markets to reach conclusions. The amendment is simply a tool that would allow Ministers to act in the interests of consumers. It would be a missed opportunity not to push it to a vote, and not to include it in the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived.

Seema Malhotra: I beg to move amendment 115, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 At any stage of
a purchase process, presenting a price for a product which omits
obligatory charges or fees (or an estimate thereof) which are payable
by the majority of consumers, which are not revealed to the consumer
until later in the purchase
process.”
This amendment adds the practice of “drip-pricing”, a pricing technique in which traders advertise only part of a product’s price and reveal other obligatory charges later as the customer goes through the buying process, to the list of unfair commercial practices.
Amendment 115 would add the practice of drip pricing to the list of unfair commercial practices. Drip pricing is a pricing technique whereby traders advertise only part of a product’s price and reveal other obligatory charges later as the customer goes through the buying process. For example, an airline may advertise a flight abroad at a certain cost that does not include an obligatory seat charge. That is added only later in the purchasing process, by which point the consumer has already prepared to purchase the product and is less likely to stop the purchase. The argument that this practice should be included in the Bill was well documented during the Committee’s evidence sessions. The consumer group Which? stated:
“We think that drip pricing is another practice that is very harmful. There is a lot of evidence that that is the case, and it should be included on the face of the Bill.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 13, Q16.]
That sentiment was reflected in Committee by Citizens Advice, the National Consumers Federation and Consumer Scotland, all of which argued that schedule 18 could be improved by adding the practice of drip pricing. Which? provided evidence of consumer detriment in its written submission, which states:
“We know that in many online markets people overpay for products and services because only part of an item’s price is initially shown and the total amount to be paid is revealed only at the end of the buying process. For example, multiple hotel booking firms were shown to have failed to have displayed compulsory charges such as taxes, booking or resort fees in the headline price.   However, while the use of these practices is common, the CMA has found its enforcement against drip pricing has been inhibited by the absence of an explicit ban.”
In its 2021 paper, “Reforming Competition and Consumer Policy”, the CMA notes:
“Drip pricing causes real detriment to consumers...Advertising of Prices market study concluded that of a series of different price framing practices, drip pricing was clearly the most harmful frame for consumers in terms of purchasing and search errors, and that raised levels of consumer learning did not fully mitigate issues with the practice. Lengthy transaction processes associated with drip pricing can ensure consumers gain a greater sense of ownership of a product and are less likely consider other offers once additional costs are revealed.”
It is clear that the introduction of drip pricing to the list of unfair commercial practices would be supported by consumer groups and the CMA, so I urge the Minister to consider supporting the amendment. I look forward to his response.

Kevin Hollinrake: I share the hon. Member’s concerns. That is why we commissioned research earlier this year, which we will publish shortly. It will detail how widespread and harmful the practice is. The Prime Minister has already said that we will gather evidence on what steps the Government should take to tackle drip pricing, so I think we are aligned in our commitment to tackling the issue.
One of the key challenges, which I do not think the hon. Lady addressed, is distinguishing drip pricing that is harmful or anti-competitive from practices that may offer greater value to the consumer—for example, a company offering optional extras such as faster postage or insurance. We will consult during the passage of the Bill on which elements of drip pricing might need tackling, and on whether further action is required. We believe it is important to conduct that exercise first, so that we have a proper, evidence-driven policy. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the Minister for his comments. There are issues to consider in relation to the amendment, but I think the broad thrust of the argument for taking action is clear. The Minister says that the findings of the research will be published shortly; I am assuming that “shortly” is not in more than a year’s time. We need to clarify that with the Government. If shortly means shortly, however, then I would be grateful for confirmation that, on the basis of the research, the Minister intends to address drip pricing; that may determine the wording in the Bill. Can the Minister confirm that there is an intention to address the issue during the passage of the Bill, perhaps through a Government amendment? The Opposition are very willing to work with the Government on that.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am keen to make a commitment to work with the hon. Member on the issue, and to ensure that a measure is brought forward as quickly as possible. I cannot give a precise date, but it will be very shortly.

Seema Malhotra: On the basis that shortly means shortly, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. Will the Minister clarify that he expects the research to come forward before Report, so that we have time to look at it? That would be a good point at which to bring forward an amendment on the issue.

Kevin Hollinrake: I cannot say when Report will be, and I do not have the timetable for that, or for the consultation on the work that we may need to do on the issue. I cannot make that precise commitment, but we are very committed to delivering on drip pricing. As the hon. Member knows, the Prime Minister spoke on it, so I cannot imagine that there will be any undue delay.

Seema Malhotra: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seema Malhotra: I beg to move amendment 116, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Commissioning,
incentivising or authorising the writing or submission of false
consumer reviews or endorsements, in order to promote
products.
33 Offering or
advertising to submit, commission or facilitate false consumer reviews
or endorsements.
34 Displaying
consumer reviews of products on an online
interface—
(a) without
taking reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure that such reviews
are submitted by consumers who have used or purchased the products in
question;
(b) where any
consumers who provided reviews were incentivised to describe certain
products in a particular way, without taking reasonable and
proportionate steps to ensure this is not the case;
or
(c) in a way that deceives
or manipulates consumers, or where a practice has been undertaken in
relation to reviews that otherwise materially distorts or impairs the
ability of consumers to make free and informed decisions, without
taking reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure this is not the
case.”
This amendment adds the practice of commissioning fake reviews, offering services to write fake reviews, and displaying consumer reviews without taking reasonable steps to verify their accuracy, to the list of unfair commercial practices.

Steve McCabe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 125, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Stating or
otherwise creating the impression that reviews of a product are
submitted by consumers who have actually used or purchased the product
without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to check that they
originate from such
consumers.
33 Submitting or
commissioning another legal or natural person to submit false consumer
reviews or endorsements, or misrepresenting consumer reviews or social
endorsements, in order to promote
products.”
This amendment would add fake reviews to the list of banned practices.

Seema Malhotra: I am pleased to speak to amendment 116, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and me. I will also touch on amendment 125, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. They are similar provisions, and he will want to make his own arguments for amendment 125.
Amendment 116 adds the practice of commissioning fake reviews, offering to provide the service of writing fake reviews, and displaying consumer reviews without taking reasonable steps to verify their accuracy to the list of unfair commercial practices. Amendment 125 would similarly add fake reviews to the list of banned practices. We support both the amendments, but I will   speak to amendment 116 in more detail, as it provides a more comprehensive legislative basis for banning fake reviews, and was recommended by the consumer group Which?.
When the Bill was published, the Government announced with much fanfare that they would introduce provisions banning the unfair commercial practice of fake reviews. However, nowhere in the Bill is there any measure that bans fake reviews. The supposed banning of fake reviews can be found in clause 234, which gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of banned practices. Unless the Minister corrects me, all we have is a promise from the Government that at some point in the future—beyond 2025—fake reviews might be banned. As Which? said during the Committee’s evidence sessions,
“We do not think that we should wait. Clearly, fake reviews are harmful, so the buying, selling and hosting of fake reviews should be included in schedule 18.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 13, Q16.]
It was not just consumer groups that expressed that sentiment; the British Retail Consortium also stated:
“We are concerned about fake reviews. We support the banning of them. We wish that what the Government propose for them was on the face of the Bill.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 49, Q78.]
I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of why the Government have left a ban out of primary legislation. One view is that the Government intended to include a ban, but ran out of time. Well, we have time to catch up during the passage of the Bill. Retail and consumer groups consider this measure very much noticeable by its absence, and it is important and significant that we address it during the passage of the Bill.
I have no doubt that the Minister will stress the need for further work and consultation on the issue. If so, perhaps he could also reflect on the considerable evidence of consumer detriment caused by fake reviews. Which? research from 2020 found that consumers are far more than twice as likely to buy poor-quality products that have been boosted by fake reviews. That affects the Minister’s constituents, mine, and those of every Member of this Committee.
As the CMA has noted, the average UK household spends £900 a year as a result of being influenced by online reviews. That demonstrates how significant the financial damage of fake reviews can be. In the Department for Business and Trade’s research from April this year, 11% to 15% of reviews in the category that it assessed were fake. That is the Government’s own research. The evidence is clear: action on fake reviews is needed now to protect consumers from their negative consequences. I would go so far as to say that the Opposition are doing the Government a favour by introducing these amendments. We have done the Government’s work for them.
I urge the Minister to support the amendments. Perhaps he will want to bring forward his own, as the Government are known to take good ideas when they see them, many of which they take from the Opposition. We understand that there has been significant dysfunction in Government, which may have got in the way of their doing the work that the country needs them to do. I therefore urge the Minister to support the amendments. He may also want to bring forward his own amendments at a future stage of the Bill or in the other place. I jest, with good reason,  but we are not precious; we just want the right thing to be done. I hope that in his response, the Minister will confirm what action the Government will take during the passage of the Bill.

Richard Thomson: I very much support amendment 116, to the extent that I withdrew my attempt at an amendment that would have countered fake reviews. It is clear that fake reviews are a matter of real concern, not just for reputable companies, but for consumers, who like to rely on customer feedback before making some of their most important financial choices. Schedule 18 defines and sets out unfair practices, and it is only right that fake reviews be added to them. We again come back to the fundamental principle that if a market is to work effectively and efficiently, people need access to timely and accurate information. That goal of having accurate information in the marketplace is subverted considerably when fake information and misinformation are allowed to abound.
As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston has said, the amendment comes from the consumer group Which?, which might be thought to know something about standing up for the best interests of consumers in the marketplace. It would outlaw certain practices to do with commissioning, incentivising or authorising the writing or submission of fake reviews, and all the criteria in the amendment clearly relate to unfair commercial practices. If we are in the business of defining unfair practices, those seem to me to be pretty reasonable definitions to add to the schedule.
Let me return to our debate on Second Reading, when we had possibly the most unencouraging engagement across the Floor of the House when I was challenged by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about how we might go about defining fake reviews. However, there seemed to be an outbreak of consensus, at least at that stage, on co-operation between the Government and the Opposition parties over what that might look like, although I have not seen any proposals coming forward from the Government.
The issue has managed to unite Labour and the SNP with the consumers’ organisation. The question I would pose to the Minister, which I would like him to address this time, is, if not this, what? We all seem to agree that fake reviews are a problem. If we are not going to deal with the matter in this way with this definition, how are we going to deal with it so the marketplace can work with effective information and so the views of consumers can play their full part in helping people to make informed choices, which are so important in ensuring the marketplace can work effectively?

Neil Coyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston and the hon. Member for Gordon have already made some excellent points, so I will be brief.
Amendment 125 would add fake reviews to the list of banned practices. No customer should be hoodwinked by the deceitful practice of submitting a fake review. Fundamentally, many customers see fake reviews as fraud, which is the fastest-growing crime. Our police services are overstretched and sadly, under this Government, they do not have the resources to tackle fraud. The  amendment examines alternative routes to securing action to tackle a problem that is leading to dangerous circumstances, as has been outlined.
Amendment 125 would provide a stronger power than the one proposed, and it has been called for by organisations representing British customers and responsible British businesses. It would be better for good business, better for customers and better for ensuring that standards were upheld. The charity Electrical Safety First, which is based in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, has said that in one of its investigations 93% of products bought from online marketplaces were unsafe—93%! In some significant part, that is down to fake reviews imposing a false legitimacy on goods. People buy because they believe other people have bought and have had an enjoyable experience or got the product they sought.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has already provided examples of the need to protect consumers, and I draw the attention of the Committee these live examples, which are happening right now. “A portable heater” was on eBay and people were saying it was fine, but it had
“easy access to live parts with 240 volts running through the heating element, posing”
what ESF called
“an imminent risk to life.”
Another example is a
“‘water-proof’ extension lead… on Amazon.”
Guess what? There are
“no water-proof capabilities”
and this
“presents a significant risk of electric shock. This item has already been recalled as unsafe by the Office for Product Safety and Standards”.
A combination of the takedown power and the removal of fake reviews that claimed that these products were okay and good to use would be a significant step forward—one that, sadly, is not in the Bill.

One last example is the bargain beauty products—not something I buy often for myself—on eBay that had no fuse in the plugs. That is how dangerous they were. Those goods, known to be dangerous, are still online. Removing fake reviews might help to prevent people from buying such shoddy items, but removing the goods altogether should be the fundamental aim. I politely suggest that the Minister adds ESF and specific consumer groups such as Which? to his round of pending meetings, to ensure that the Bill is improved—and to tackle the problem that he previously acknowledged existed. He likened himself earlier to “Pale Rider”. He may think he is “Pale Rider”, but I am not convinced that he has turned up on a horse, or even on a pony. Given that there is no baron here, it is more as though he is on a rocking horse.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am not sure that I can take that analogy any further. I think we are all in agreement. They say that the art of originality is to remember what you have heard but forget where you heard it. The Opposition say that we are stealing their good ideas, but obviously we committed some time ago to taking action in this area. I am not averse to taking some of the good ideas that we hear from the Opposition from time to time, but we also have to ensure that we reject the many bad ideas we hear from them in debates.
The Government agree that legislation to tackle fake reviews should be strengthened. We anticipate doing so by adding to the list of banned practices. However, it is important to get the details of those proposals right. That includes defining what we mean by fake reviews and how “reasonable and proportionate” steps will be understood. Similarly, we want those rules to encompass the manipulation of reviews that may harm consumers, which also needs detailed work with stakeholders to define. For example, the issue is not just about people trying to boost reviews, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston stated; it is also to do with people removing negative reviews inappropriately, which might affect ratings on review sites. The Government will therefore be consulting on fake reviews during the passage of the Bill to ensure that these rules work as intended and are clear for businesses. We will be doing that shortly, in the autumn.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark talked about ESF and Which?. I have spoken to both organisations and met them regularly. In fact, one of my first jobs in my ministerial role was to speak at an Electrical Safety First conference. On that note, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.

Seema Malhotra: I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response; it does not sound as if there is anything other than long grass here. Significant groundwork has been done, both within Government and with stakeholders. Having another consultation in the autumn is like long grass: it is designed to spin things out until we reach 2025 and then there is something to add to the schedule. Unless the Minister wants to tell me that there is an intention to do more during the course of the Bill, we will be pushing this to a vote.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 125, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Stating or
otherwise creating the impression that reviews of a product are
submitted by consumers who have actually used or purchased the product
without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to check that they
originate from such
consumers.
33 Submitting or
commissioning another legal or natural person to submit false consumer
reviews or endorsements, or misrepresenting consumer reviews or social
endorsements, in order to promote products.”—
This amendment would add fake reviews to the list of banned practices.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Eighteenth schedule to the Bill.

Seema Malhotra: Schedule 18 introduces a list of commercial practices that will automatically be considered unfair in all circumstances and will be prohibited. The list is long and comprehensive, and the Opposition welcome every practice listed, including a seller’s claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when they are not, falsely claiming that a product is able to prevent disease, providing inaccurate information about the availability of a product, and threatening a consumer if they do not buy a product.
However, we are concerned that there are significant omissions, which we addressed during our debates on the amendments. We will be happy to consider alternative wording, but we will continue to pursue additions that we believe would strengthen the Bill and its implementation. Nevertheless, we support the inclusion of this important schedule in the Bill.

Kevin Hollinrake: As has been said, the schedule protects consumers from the most prevalent and harmful commercial practices engaged in by deceitful traders. It largely replicates schedule 1 to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and provides a list of 31 commercial practices that are banned in all circumstances due to their inherently unfair nature. Among those practices are operating pyramid promotional schemes, displaying trust marks without obtaining the necessary authorisation, and stating that a product can be legally sold when it cannot.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 18 accordingly agreed to.

Clauses 218 to 221 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 222 - Omission of material information from invitation to purchase

Seema Malhotra: I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 222, page 149, line 21, at end insert—
“(j)
for goods and services offered on online
marketplaces, whether the third party offering the products is a trader
or not, on the basis of the declaration of that third party to the
provider of the online
marketplace.”
This amendment would add whether or not a third party seller on an online marketplace is a trader or a consumer to the list of omissions of material information in an invitation to purchase.

Steve McCabe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 126, in clause 222, page 150, line 11, leave out “and its price”.
This amendment expands the definition of an invitation to purchase to cases where the information provided to the consumer covers the characteristics of the product but not its price.

Seema Malhotra: It is a pleasure to speak to amendment 127, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, and to make some remarks about amendment 126, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
Amendment 127 would add whether a third-party seller on an online marketplace is a trader or a consumer to the list of omissions of material information in an invitation to purchase. We have already raised concerns about the safety of products sold in online marketplaces, specifically through third-party sellers, and these concerns are accentuated by the inexplicable delay—it has been over a year since its publication was first promised, as we have discussed—of the product safety review into precisely this issue. In the meantime, the amendment would provide an extra safeguard for the consumer by making it mandatory for them to be informed about the status of a seller when they purchase a product online. That is particularly important in an increasingly digital economy, in which almost every individual or business can sell but consumers are unaware that they have different rights and forms of redress, depending on the status of the seller.
Consumer rights groups regularly conduct studies of products sold by third-party sellers on online marketplaces to test whether they comply with UK safety requirements. For example, in February this year, Which? sent 10 plug-in mini-heaters bought from online marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay to be tested at its product safety lab. All of them failed and were illegal to sell in the UK. That is especially dangerous for consumers in the light of the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis, which is resulting in people being pushed to buy cheaper, less reliable products.
Although only comprehensive Government action on this front will lead to the issue being properly tackled, the amendment would go part of the way towards providing the consumer with more power in online marketplaces, by informing them of the status of a seller and that their rights of redress when purchasing some products will vary from the rights they have when buying from the high street. It is a common-sense amendment that will help inform consumers in our digital economy and subsequently reduce the risks they face when buying from online marketplaces, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Amendment 126 would expand the definition of an “invitation to purchase” to cases where the information provided to the consumer covers the characteristics of a product but not its price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark will speak to the amendment, which raises important questions for the Government. Removing the price from the definition of an “invitation to purchase” would ensure that many rogue traders, and the services they offer, were in scope of the definition.
As the Chartered Trading Standards Institute has pointed out, many rogue traders who target vulnerable consumers do not give a price when offering to do  work. This means that it would automatically not be considered an “invitation to purchase”, and the regulations in clause 222 would not apply. By removing the reference to “price” in the definition of an “invitation to purchase”, the amendment would ensure that more rogue traders fall under the definition and can be caught by the legislation. The Minister may have his own views on the amendment. This is a really important issue, so I would welcome his response on the effectiveness of the amendment in addressing the issue and on the impact it could have.

Neil Coyle: I have a few brief supplementary comments, further to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. I just want to point out an anomaly and the problematic nature of the wording of the Bill, which I hope the Government will re-examine before they go further.
Amendment 126 would expand the definition of “invitation to purchase” to cases in which the information provided to a consumer covers the characteristics of a product, but not its price. That might sound counterintuitive, as it did to me when I first went through this with organisations, but it would expand the goods and services covered by the legislation. That is important, because the use of “price” in the wording of the Bill could prohibit action against a rogue trader. The existing wording might stop the Government meeting the aims that they are setting out to achieve.
The suggestion is that the specific requirement that the price be covered, if that is not the price paid, will potentially prevent action from being taken against a trader who deliberately advertises a price, but then changes it. An example might be where someone arranges for a person to come and fix a car part, a boiler or a pipe leak, and that person then arrives and says, “The product you’ve looked at online is not compatible with your boiler,”—or their fittings, their car or whatever it might be—“but guess what: I’ve got a different one in the van that’s a bit cheaper,” or a bit more expensive, “but will do the job better for you.”
By making a slight change to the wording of the Bill to remove the words “and its price” on page 150, amendment 126 would deal with that kind of rogue practice, which is out there and which has been raised by trading standards. The fear among the bodies that are trying to secure greater action against rogue traders is that the existing wording of the Bill allows wiggle room and will let the dodgy practices continue. I hope that airing that specific, possibly niche concern today will give us greater time to capture it and ensure that the Bill does not preclude action against rogue traders where specific prices are agreed up front but that is not the deal that takes place, because someone pays for a cheaper or even a more expensive alternative that does the same job.
Having flagged that concern, I hope that the Government will look again at the wording and at how they will meet their overall aim, which I support.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is an interesting point. We took the decision to strengthen the existing provisions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in relation to invitations to purchase by removing the need for enforcers to prove that the transactional decision test has been met. This significantly increases the criminal liability of unscrupulous traders.
Amendment 126 would expand the definition of an invitation to purchase still further to cases in which information about products is presented to consumers without a price shown. We are concerned that that would expand the definition too far. Moreover, other provisions in chapter 1 of the Bill will achieve a similar aim: they will prohibit traders from making misleading statements or omissions in respect of all commercial practices. We feel that that covers this issue. However, I am happy to have further conversations with the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, certainly based on the evidence he has received, which I am happy to look at.
Amendment 127 would require that information as to whether a third-party seller or online marketplace is a trader or a consumer be added to the list of material information in an invitation to purchase. We have the same aim. Clause 222(2)(c) will require
“the identity of the trader and the identity of any other person on whose behalf the trader is acting”
to be disclosed. Moreover, subsections (2)(d) and (e) will require a range of contact details to be provided to consumers about who they may be buying from.
Accordingly, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the Minister for his comments. We still take the view that this needs to be tighter. In the light of his intentions, which we understand, we will take it away and look at it again. I do not want to lose our amendment, but we will not press it to a vote today. Perhaps we can come back to it at a future stage of the Bill.

Neil Coyle: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will look at the evidence. I am happy not to press amendment 126.

Seema Malhotra: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 127.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 222 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 223 - Public enforcement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Kevin Hollinrake: Clause 223 sets out who is responsible for enforcing the prohibition on unfair commercial practices. Trading standards have a duty to enforce the prohibitions in their areas across Great Britain. The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has a duty to enforce the prohibitions in Northern Ireland. The CMA has the power to enforce the prohibitions on a civil and criminal basis in the UK.

Seema Malhotra: We welcome clause 223. As the Minister states, it introduces provisions relating to the enforcement of the prohibition of unfair commercial  practices, setting out how local weights and measures authorities—trading standards—will have a duty to enforce the prohibitions. The CMA will also have enforcement powers. We have talked several times in this Committee about the importance of trading standards in enforcing the regime. How involved have the CMA and trading standards been in the discussion around the powers in the Bill?
Is the Minister confident that local trading standards officers have the resources to enforce the regulations, especially after 13 years of what can only be described as a managed decline of local trading standards authorities, with local services facing a 52% reduction in service capacity under the Government’s watch since 2010? It is important to know that, because where increased expectations are coming through in legislation the question is whether there will be capacity to deliver on the new demands. I would be grateful for his response.

Kevin Hollinrake: I have meetings with the national teams of trading standards, and indeed the CMA, on a regular basis. We have had numerous discussions about the legislation, if the hon. Lady means her question broadly. Indeed, she was able to question some of those witnesses in the recent evidence sessions. Clearly, resources for trading standards are a matter for local authorities, not central Government. It is for local authorities to determine where those resources are committed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 223 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 224 - Rights of redress

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Kevin Hollinrake: Clause 224 sets out the conditions under which consumers may exercise redress rights. The main condition is that misleading actions or aggressive practices must play a significant factor in the consumer’s decision to make payment for the supply of a good or enter a contract. Without the clause, victims of rogue traders who engage in lies and aggressive selling practices would be left with no private right of redress.

Seema Malhotra: Under clause 224, as the Minister says, the consumer will be able to enforce their right to redress relating to unfair commercial practices, subject to conditions, including that they have entered into a relevant contract, that the trader has engaged in a prohibited practice, that the prohibited practice was a significant factor in the consumer’s decision to make payment, and that the product concerned is not of an excluded type. Those are important provisions, including in the context of our debate about greenwashing. That is why it is important that we take forward the issues we have debated. None the less, we welcome the clause and these important provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 224 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 225 - Rights of redress: further provision

Richard Thomson: I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 225, page 152, line 30, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary
of State must by regulations make any further provision necessary to
ensure that the rights of redress available under this Chapter are
equivalent to, and not lesser than, those available under the Consumer
Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I.
2008/1277).”
This amendment seeks to ensure that the “Consumer Rights to Redress” that will be set out through secondary legislation cannot offer a reduced level of the protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Steve McCabe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 114, in clause 225, page 152, line 33, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary
of State must—
(a) prepare a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress by regulations set out in 225(1), and
(b) lay a copy of this report before Parliament.
(8)
The report must be laid within the period of 12 months beginning with
the day on which this Act is
passed.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress through secondary legislation, as is the case in EU member states.

Richard Thomson: As the explanatory statement sets out, amendment 67 seeks to ensure that the consumer rights to redress introduced through secondary legislation by Ministers cannot offer less protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. That statutory instrument was effectively the successor to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and was designed to implement the unfair commercial practices directive as part of a common set of European minimum standards for consumer protection. Consumers, not just in Europe but throughout the UK, have benefited immensely from those protections. It is important as a point of principle that as legislation is repealed or evolves, there should be no inadvertent reduction in baseline consumer protections. There should be a reduction in consumer protections only where the Government deliberately choose to do so and we have an open debate.
The amendment is very much about ensuring that nothing slips down the drain inadvertently in terms of consumer protection. If the Government are not minded to accept it, what existing protections will they unwittingly let fall by the wayside? The amendment would capture the baseline level of protection through future secondary legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

Seema Malhotra: I am pleased to speak to amendment 114, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. I will also make reference to amendment 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon.
Amendment 114 would require that the Secretary of State prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress through secondary legislation, as  is the case in EU member states. Amendment 67 would ensure that the consumer rights to redress set out in secondary legislation cannot offer less protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. We support the principle of amendment 67, which would have a similar effect to amendment 114 by ensuring a more robust consumer right to redress.
More specifically on amendment 114, I refer the Minister to the written evidence of Which?, which notes that
“the Bill states that ‘Consumer Rights to Redress’ may be provided for in future secondary legislation, so it will give the Secretary of State powers to amend these rights. These rights are fundamentally important, as they include payment of damages when a trader misleads a consumer. We want assurances that they will not be downgraded as a result of this process, and a commitment from the Government to strengthen redress procedures when these new regulations are drafted.”
Amendment 114 would require a commitment from  the Government to report on doing that, aiding the process of strengthening redress procedures when new regulations are drafted. I urge the Government to support amendments 114 and 67, and to ensure that consumer rights to redress are as strong as they can be, particularly in an increasingly digital economy.

Kevin Hollinrake: Amendments 67 and 114 deal with consumers’ private rights to redress. I agree with the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Gordon that it is vital that consumers have robust private rights of redress.
Amendment 67 would limit changes by regulation to the consumer rights of redress to those that are equivalent to the remedies in the CPRs—the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The Bill includes powers to amend rights of redress. That could include how such rights are exercised; the powers could also be used to make those rights clearer and simpler. Those would be positive changes for consumers that might not meet the test of equivalence to the current regulations that the amendment would impose. We would like to retain the ability to exceed the existing private redress provisions, if appropriate, which may encourage more consumers to make use of these rights. The first regulations made using the power will be to create the new regime to replace the current private redress provisions in the CPRs. Accordingly, those regulations will be subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure, thereby providing for appropriate parliamentary oversight of use of the power.
I turn to amendment 114. The courts already have the power to make an enforcement order against an infringer, or to accept undertakings from them to provide redress to affected consumers, through the measures in part 3. Enforcers can also accept undertakings from infringers to provide redress to affected consumers. For example, in 2021 the CMA secured an undertaking from Teletext Holidays to pay over £7 million in outstanding refunds from package travel trips cancelled due to covid-19.
The Bill will make the power to require enhanced consumer measures directly available to the CMA. Consumers also already have individual private rights of redress. In the “Reforming competition and consumer policy” consultation, we consulted on whether to introduce a right for consumers to bring collective redress. Responses were mixed, with concerns raised about unintended  consequences such as the creation of a claims culture and inadvertently disincentivising the bringing of proceedings by consumer groups.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston referred to the EU situation. The outcome, however, is similar to the desired situation under the EU’s directive on collective redress, which requires member states to designate entities, such as consumer organisations, that can bring actions for collective redress on consumers’ behalf. The EU does not mandate that member states introduce direct rights for individual consumers to bring an action for collective redress.
We will keep the evidence under review, but our priority is to embed the CMA direct enforcement regime and understand the impact that it makes. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Richard Thomson: With regret, I am not minded to withdraw amendment 67. I hear what the Minister says about how the Government may wish to go beyond existing levels of consumer protection. That is welcome where appropriate, but I do not see anything in the amendment that would prevent Ministers from doing that. The key element in the amendment is to capture a baseline level of protection, equivalent to what was in   the 2008 regulations, to ensure that there is nothing that dips below that without a conscious decision to do so having been taken and debated. On the basis that there is nothing that would prevent the Government from enhancing the levels of protection at any time, I am keen to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.